Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM3-1.7B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
LFM3-1.7B and WeVisOne-VL-4B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). WeVisOne-VL-4B leads on risk. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 6359 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Agents on a laptop, phone or small server that need tool calling and a long context from a model under 2 GB at 4 bits
Ahead on
- Reach, 85 against 70
- Agent interface, 100 against 70
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 48
Watch for
vLLM and SGLang have no released support, though the card lists both
Best for Agents that need to locate, count or cut out objects in images on a small GPU, under a permissive licence
Ahead on
- Risk, 55 against 40
Watch for
The pixel decoder ships as a pickle file
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Agent interface LFM3-1.7B +30
LFM3-1.7B 100
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (12,129 characters), with roles, tools, deferred tools, tool results and the thinking switch. Tool-calling format 25, the card and Liquid's tool-use page document tools passed through tools= in apply_chat_template, calls returned as XML and results sent back as tool messages. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over every entry in an assistant turn's tool_calls, so several calls fit in one turn, and the card says the model was trained on tool calls and agentic traces and with reinforcement learning inside agent harnesses. Structured output 15, Liquid's API guide documents response_format with a JSON Schema, with lfm3-1.7b as the model in its examples, and says the schema is checked before generation starts. Reasoning control 10, the card documents enable_thinking=False in the chat template to turn reasoning off per request, with reasoning on by default inside think tags, and preserve_thinking for earlier turns. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, which says the mid-training stage extended the context window to 256K, and max_position_embeddings 262144 in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 15 + 10 + 10 = 100.
WeVisOne-VL-4B 70
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (5,292 characters), Qwen3-VL's template. Tool-calling format 25, Read for a perception model as what it takes and returns. Trained tool calling 10, Read for a perception model as the inputs it was trained to use. Structured output 15, Read for a perception model as typed outputs. Reasoning control 0, the card says it writes structured output directly with no chain-of-thought reasoning. Context 0, Tencent states no context length for it. 20 + 25 + 10 + 15 + 0 + 0 = 70.
Documentation and upkeep LFM3-1.7B +19
LFM3-1.7B 67
Model card 17, Intended use (local agents, tool calling, structured outputs, fine-tuning), a limitation (not recommended for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning), architecture (24 layers: 13 gated short convolutions, 5 sliding-window and 6 global attention), parameters (1.73B), context (256K) and 16 languages. Training data 5, A general description: 22T tokens of pre-training in two stages with the kinds of data added since LFM2, 1.75T tokens of supervised fine-tuning, then mixed reinforcement learning, distillation from six specialist teachers and agentic reinforcement learning. Last change 20, the last commit, on 9 November 2026, added the OpenVINO checkpoint to the card's inference table, a day before this check. Responsiveness 10, Of the 22 discussions that aren't pull requests (27 October to 8 November 2026), 7 have a reply from a LiquidAI member, which is some. Version policy 5, LFM3 came out in new repositories and the LFM2.5 models stay in theirs. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the lfm3 architecture, the 262,144-token context and the thinking switch. 17 + 5 + 20 + 10 + 5 + 10 = 67.
WeVisOne-VL-4B 48
Model card 8, Intended use, limitations and the architecture are on the card. Training data 5, A general description in the README of a data engine and over 100 million annotated images, with no sources named and no cut-off. Last change 20, the last commit, on 27 October 2026, added links to the paper and project page, 14 days before this check. Responsiveness 0, Neither of the 2 discussions that aren't pull requests (23 and 26 October 2026) has a reply from a tencent member, counted on 10 November by author flags and dates with a script, text not read. Version policy 5, A first release, 14 days old. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the Qwen3-VL classes, and the card names mask_decoder.pt as required and it's there. 8 + 5 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 48.
Reach LFM3-1.7B +15
LFM3-1.7B 85
Memory 30, Liquid's Q4_K_M GGUF is 1.10 GB, and 1.10 GB × 1.2 = 1.3 GB, which fits 8 GB, well inside the 16 GB line. Runtimes 15, Released llama.cpp has the lfm3 architecture (src/models/lfm3.cpp at b12242), Ollama's library has an lfm3 entry, and LM Studio's catalogue runs the architecture (its liquid/lfm3-vl-2b entry; lmstudio-community publishes a GGUF of this model). Builds 15, Liquid's GGUF repository holds Q4_0, Q4_K_M, Q8_0, F16 and BF16 files, and Liquid publishes 4-bit and 8-bit MLX builds and an ONNX repository, all in the LiquidAI organisation. Terms 10, the LFM Open License v1.0, a custom licence that lets anyone use it commercially for free below a threshold of $10M annual revenue. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its GGUF, MLX and ONNX repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 5, Liquid's own API lists lfm3-1.7b among its models, so the publisher hosts it. 30 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 85.
WeVisOne-VL-4B 70
Memory 30, the only build from Tencent is the BF16 safetensors file with its decoder, 9.7 GB, and 9.7 GB × 1.2 = 11.6 GB, within 16 GB. No runtime library has a build. Runtimes 15, the architecture is Qwen3VLForConditionalGeneration, which vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23 and Transformers 5.22.2 run from the safetensors file, three at 5 each. Builds 0, Tencent publishes the BF16 weights only. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata with the LICENSE file in the repository, and nothing added. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps no inference provider to it. 30 + 15 + 0 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 70.
Risk WeVisOne-VL-4B +15
LFM3-1.7B 40
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, files in the LiquidAI organisation, which Liquid's docs page for the model and its blog post link to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card or in Liquid's blog post for the LFM3 family, neither of which mentions safety testing. Agent guidance 0, Nothing on prompt injection, an instruction hierarchy, what refusals cover or safeguards to add. Licence risk 10, 15 less 5 for the $10M annual revenue threshold on commercial use. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw found. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 10 + 0 = 40.
WeVisOne-VL-4B 55
File safety 15, the backbone is safetensors, but mask_decoder.pt, a PyTorch pickle the card calls a required component, sits beside it. Provenance 15, the files sit in the tencent organisation, which Tencent's GitHub repository for the model links to (10), and the Hub gives a SHA-256 for the large files (5). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card or in the README. Agent guidance 5, General cautions: the card says the release is for research, isn't for autonomous high-impact decisions or identifying individuals, and lists where masks go wrong. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 with no use policy, no threshold and no right to change the terms. Security programme 5, Tencent's Security Response Center takes vulnerability reports company-wide, as the Hy3 listing records (5). 15 + 15 + 0 + 5 + 15 + 5 = 55.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM3-1.7B | WeVisOne-VL-4B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 85 | 70 | LFM3-1.7B +15 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 40 | 55 | WeVisOne-VL-4B +15 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 100 | 70 | LFM3-1.7B +30 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 67 | 48 | LFM3-1.7B +19 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM3-1.7B | WeVisOne-VL-4B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Liquid AI | Tencent (WeChat Vision) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-11-09 | 2026-10-27 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | not read yet |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
Verdicts
LFM3-1.7B
A 1.73B model that fits an 8 GB machine with room to spare, with a documented tool-call format, deferred tools, a thinking switch and a 256K context. It runs today in llama.cpp, Ollama and LM Studio only, loads in Transformers through repository code, and has no safety results, security contact or data sources.
WeVisOne-VL-4B
A small Apache 2.0 perception model that finds, counts, reads and cuts out what you name in an image, and says None when it isn't there. Boxes and points run in vLLM, SGLang or Transformers. Masks and mattes need Tencent's package and a pickle file. Two weeks old, with no questions answered yet and no safety results.
Before you call either
LFM3-1.7B
- Start it with
llama-server -hf LiquidAI/LFM3-1.7B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinjaorollama run lfm3 - Use temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition penalty 1.1 for chat, tools and agents, per the card
- Pass
enable_thinking=Falsefor direct answers, and expect it to reason anyway on hard tasks - For a large tool catalogue mark tools
defer_loadingand give it a search tool - Don't plan on vLLM or SGLang until a release carries LFM3
- Liquid doesn't recommend it for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning
WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Use Tencent's package:
WeVisOneVL("tencent/WeVisOne-VL-4B", backend="vllm")thenmodel.predict(image, task=..., query=...) - Tasks are detection, referring, point, count_box, count_point, ocr, ocr_grounding, segmentation and matting
- A None answer means the target isn't in the image. Treat it as a result, not an error
- mask_decoder.pt is a pickle. Load it only from the tencent repository, and check its SHA-256 against the Hub's
- Send one image a turn. Video grids are rejected by the decoder
- The card says it isn't for identifying individuals or for high-impact decisions on its own
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM3-1.7B or WeVisOne-VL-4B?
LFM3-1.7B and WeVisOne-VL-4B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). WeVisOne-VL-4B leads on risk.
Other comparisons with LFM3-1.7B or WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Agents-A1-4B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM3-1.7B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Arete-27B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Arete-27B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- BigBang-v1 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Carbon-X vs LFM3-1.7B
- Carbon-X vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Cola2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Cola2 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM3-1.7B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Devstral Small 2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Devstral Small 2 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM3-1.7B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-120b vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-20b vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Hy3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy3 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling-Small vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Inkling vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM3-1.7B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kimi K3 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kolibri-1 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Kronos vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kronos vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna M.1 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LBS-27B vs LFM3-1.7B
- LBS-27B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-1.7B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs LongCat-2.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- LFM3-1.7B vs Mistral Large 4
- LFM3-1.7B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM3-1.7B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- LFM3-1.7B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- LFM3-1.7B vs occamy-1.0
- LFM3-1.7B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- LFM3-1.7B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- LFM3-1.7B vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- LFM3-1.7B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-1.7B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- LFM3-1.7B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- LFM3-1.7B vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs ZAYA1-8B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LongCat-2.5 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Mistral Large 4 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- occamy-1.0 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3.5-2B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3.5-4B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3.5-9B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3.6-27B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3.8-27B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Recursive Flint vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Ripple-65B Preview vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- SmolLM3-3B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Spark-X2.6-4B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B) vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- WeVisOne-VL-2B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- WeVisOne-VL-4B vs ZAYA1-8B
- Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2 vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm3-1-7b-vs-wevisone-vl-4b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/lfm3-1-7b.json·/api/v1/tools/wevisone-vl-4b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm3-1-7b wevisone-vl-4b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm3-1-7b", "b": "wevisone-vl-4b"}at/mcp, no key